Bombay High Court: A petition was filed under Article of the by petitioners seeking to challenge communications dated 28-1-2014 and 31-3-2014 issued by Respondent 2, Senior Manager (HR), Airport Authority of India, whereby Petitioner 2’s application for maternity leave benefit was rejected on the ground that she was having more than two surviving children and hence was not eligible for the grant of maternity leave as per the Airport Authority of India (Leave) Regulations, 2003 (‘AAI Leave Regulations’).
The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain*, JJ., opined that Petitioner 2’s claim was justified inasmuch as after joining the service of Respondent 2, she had given birth to only two children and applied for the maternity leave benefit at the time of giving birth to the second child only. The Court thus directed respondents to grant maternity benefits to Petitioner 2 in respect of the delivery of her second child on 3-9-2012.
Background
Petitioner 2 gave birth to one child in 1997 and in the year 2000, her husband passed away and thus in his place, pursuant to an application by Petitioner 2 for a compassionate appointment, she was appointed by Respondent 2 as Junior Attendant on 24-2-2004. In 2008, Petitioner 2 remarried and out of the second marriage, she gave birth to two children, i.e., in 2009, she had her first child, and the second child was born in 2012. Thereafter, on delivering her second child, Petitioner 2 applied to Respondent 2 for maternity leave benefit by applications dated 3-9-2012 and 19-12-2013. The application was rejected by Respondent 2 vide communications dated 28-1-2014 and 31-3-2014 on the ground that Petitioner 2 was having more than two surviving children and, therefore, was not eligible for grant of maternity leave as per AAI Leave Regulations. Thus, Petitioner 2 challenged the said communications.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that Petitioner 2 was an employee of Respondent 2 and on 13-6-2003, Respondent 1 approved AAI Leave Regulations, which were framed under Section of the . The Court also noted that AAI Leave Regulations of Respondent 2 provided that a female employee with less than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave of 135 days/180 days twice during her service period and to avail the said leave, the employee should have completed at least one-year regular service in AAI.
The Court observed that the phrase “twice in service period” read with the phrases “less than two surviving children” and “one-year regular service” meant that a female employee would get the benefit of maternity leave only twice in the service period and, therefore, the condition of “two surviving children” was contended.
The Court opined that since the objective was to give the maternity leave benefit only twice during the service period, the condition of “two surviving children” if read in that context would mean that the female employee should have given birth to the two surviving children only during the service period. The Court also opined that the objective of the Regulation was to give maternity leave benefit and not to curb the population. The condition of two surviving children was subjected so that the maximum times a female employee could benefit was only twice and this was to ensure that the organization was not without the services of the employee for more than two times. Therefore, to maintain the balance between the employee’s absence and the benefit of maternity leave that there was a cap of availing the said benefit only twice during the service period.
The Court noted that the first child from the first marriage was born before Petitioner 2 joined Respondent 2 and after she joined Respondent 2, she remarried and gave birth to two children, one in 2009 and the second in 2012. She did not take the benefit of maternity leave at the time of giving birth in 2009. She applied for the said benefit for the first time by applications dated 3-9-2012 and 19-12-2013, pursuant to her giving birth to second child after joining Respondent 2. Thus, the Court opined that since Petitioner 2 gave birth to two children during the service period and had not taken the benefit of maternity leave at the time of giving birth to the first child after joining Respondent 2, she would be entitled to the maternity leave benefit when she applied on 3-9-2012, since the said leave was sought to be availed only once after joining the service.
The Court opined that respondents were not justified in denying the benefit of the maternity leave to Petitioner 2 only on the ground that if the child born from her first marriage which was before the date of her joining Respondent 2 was considered, then she was not entitled for the benefit on account of breaching the condition of having more than two surviving children.
The Court opined that “women who constitute almost half of the segment of our society have to be honoured and treated with dignity at places where they work to earn their livelihood. Whatever be the nature of their duties, their avocation, and the place where they work, they must be provided with all the facilities to which they are entitled. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth of child to a woman who is in service, the employer has to be considerate and sympathetic towards her and must realize the physical difficulties which a working woman would face in performing her duties at the workplace while carrying a baby in the womb or while rearing up the child after birth”.
The Court relied on Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal, , wherein the Supreme Court enunciated the right of a female employee to pregnancy and maternity leave. The Court opined the objective of the Maternity Leave Benefits Regulation was to offer protection to a woman and its importance must be seen from the health point of a woman employee.
The Court opined that Petitioner 2’s claim was justified inasmuch as after joining the service of Respondent 2, she had given birth to only two children and applied for the maternity leave benefit at the time of giving birth to the second child only. The Court further opined that the fact that Petitioner 2 having given birth to the first child from her first marriage and that too before joining Respondent 2 would not be relevant for considering her claim for maternity leave post her joining Respondent 2 for the purpose of the Regulation concerning said benefit.
The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the communication dated 28-1-2014 and 31-3-2014 issued by Respondent 2. The Court directed respondents to grant maternity benefits to Petitioner 2 in respect of the delivery of her second child on 3-9-2012.
[Airports Authority of India Workers Union v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 8744 of 2015, decided on 10-5-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Jitendra Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Pavitra Mahesh i/b. Meelan Topkar
For the Respondents: Ahmed Padela i/b. The Law Point for Respondent 2
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .